NKU Advanced Typography

Copyright it...

2005-11-09T20:56:00.000-08:00

Yea... If the Bulls can copyright "three-peat", you should be able to copy something that actually took work to do. I'm suprised you can't copyright it. I actually thought you could copyright everything. I wouldn't think paying for typefaces it not that bad for a business, but I could be mistaken. At least you would supporting your profession. Yeah, that's what I think.

-Chris Ritter
(c) 2005

Grids

2005-11-09T16:17:00.000-08:00

I believe whole-heartedly in grids. I find myself using some form of grid each time I go to design anything that involves type. I feel like a good grid is comparable to the human skeleton; vital to an organized anatomy. When a grid is used improperly, it is like seeing someone with way too many vertebre or tiny femurs.

I do find myself using very simple grids, however. I typically don't use increments smaller than an eighth of an inch, because too much math makes my head spin.

Although I think most students will acknowledge the importance of a grid system, I can't really think of a single class that extensively covered the subject. I'm not really sure where it introduced, because obviously the majority of us understand the concept.

It sometimes becomes irratating to me when a grid is too apparent. I'm not really sure why, since it technically means the design is well-organized, but if every single object is perfectly aligned to the same guideline, it is too easily visible and drives me nuts.

This response is really less a cohesive writing as it is a series of thoughts tied together poorly. Sorry to whoever reads this, I am having a poor writing day.

Troubled type

2005-11-09T15:06:00.000-08:00

I had no clue that type could not be copyrighted. I am impressed by the people who spend their time making a typeface, knowing that it is just going to be copied over and over again, while they do not get any credit for it. I admit that I have downloaded typefaces for free off the Internet; I even downloaded Kabel for my poster. I am not sure how I feel about this whole issue. On one hand I am pissed that people aren't get recognition where they deserve, but on the other hand it kind of sucks having to pay an ass load of money every time I want to new font. But maybe that is the way it should be.

A little late

2005-11-09T14:54:00.000-08:00

Tim said he might be a bit late on finishing his blog...

trouble

2005-11-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

Its hard to comprehend why someone would spend so much time creating a new typeface when "The United States is one of the few, if not only, industrialized nations in the world that does not extend copyright protection to typeface designs." Almost everything else I can think of has copyright protection, so why not typeface design. As stated in the article, typefaces are expressions of an idea. "And as expressions of an idea, they constitute orginal works of authorship." Its sad to say, but like we have discussed before, morals and values are thrown out when money is involved. Some companies dont care who they rip off as long as their making money.

GRIDS

2005-11-09T14:31:00.000-08:00

A grid system can be used for alot of things including good ole graphic design, I agree with whats said, grids can make layouts easier to organize and easier and cleaner to present information. Grid systems are easy ways to create a good compostion, but then again some grid layouts can be extremely boring. I read something somewhere sometime, and dont know why I remember it, but someone said that life and society is like a grid. Everyone living in a society lives in their own grid area and normally no one leaves their boundaries of the grid. Life is has certain layouts that the norm follows. But he continued to say that, the people who leave their grid boundaries are the ones that make an interesting difference, good or bad. Someone might do something great with their life by leaving the normal boundaries, but then people can end up in bad positions. I think this is similar to to design. Grids are good, but sometimes when you break that grid the design can be that much better. Thanks to Tim he let me see a book called Making and Breaking the Grid, or something like that, and it showed ways that a grid system can be used good when the boundaries of the grid are followed, but then it also showed ways that breaking that constraint can make the design so much strong. Thanks Tim. Anyways, thats really all I can think about to say for this. And me unlike some others are only 30 minutes late. Oh well...I guess we'll talk more tomorrow about this wonderful topic.

Troubled Type

2005-11-09T14:21:00.000-08:00

After reading this article, I started to realize how often people download type from the internet and use it over and over again without ever paying...myself included. Now thinking on that, is it okay to use it for your design work if you're a student? I guess my opinion on that would be yes...as long as your not getting paid for that design, but it is really unfortunate for the person who designed that specific typeface and never get the benefits of people using it...

Another point I'd like to mention is the part in the article when it talks about how the design of type isn't what it used to be...people today are so caught up in making money, they don't care if their craft suffers. It has become more about how much you can produce in a short amount of time to get lots of money, which sounds good, but looking back at our history of type, the pride in the work isn't there anymore.

Alicia

Grids and such

2005-11-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

GRIDS are Great, but chaos breads creation— everyone strains to see the twisted mess of a car accident as they drive past. A grid is a basic box, a formation for constraint. I think that if we as designers find the middle road (what we are best at) and what is our personal nich we we ultimately fit into the society of design. I do not mean that we should stick to a formula. Everthing eventually comes to a point of evolution, design or otherwise. Maybe being a chameleon in the design world is not a bad thing? It is too early in our design life, we need to explore our creativity - find the best solution for ourselves as creative thinkers and designers.

The grid system is present in all things around us and it may be practically used in all types of design applications, but thinking outside of the box is a great for expanding your the mind. Things like information design feels like it is the right place for grids to be used, because obtaining the proper information is vital for communication and commerce. There is a time and place for everthing [in design] especially grids, and even chaos.

mcGriddle

2005-11-09T12:43:00.000-08:00

There’s an adage that goes something like, “With chaos comes order, and with order comes chaos.” And this essay began to give me nervous tics. Frankly I found it a little annoying when Muller-Brockman began going on and on about measurements, Pythagoras, proportions, and mathematics (the source of my tics, I’m sure . . .), and felt my whole life in graphic design flash before my eyes. That could also just be this migraine but I digress.

Yeah, I’m all for grids. Go grids. Woo! God knows we need grids to herd the sheep from home to work and back again. Without organization in design, I can understand perfectly how grids are “vital in sociopolitical life,” you adorable constructivist you. “Constructivist design means the conversion of design laws into practical solutions.” (198) Agreed. The less we have to explain ourselves, the better.

(In the meantime, I find it funny how with all this talk about grids and structure, Muller-Brockman refuses to implement correct punctuation in spots, just thought I’d point that out and now I’m done.)

But if there is so much structure to design, where’s the risk taking? Where’s the swashbuckling adventure? Where’s the guts? “Work with the grid system means submitting to laws of universal validity.” Eh? The universe is all order and no chaos? I like a healthy teaspoon of chaos with my cup of order in the morning, thanks, I don’t know about you. “The use of the grid system implies . . . the will to adopt a positive, forward-thinking attitude.” (198) So without grids we’re backward emos?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for grids. Go grids. But I’m wondering about monotony in design if everything was plotted down to the last dotted I and crossed T. If you plan everything precisely to solve a visual problem without experimenting outside of grids, you lessen your chances to discover something new. I think you need to find a balance between order and chaos here, to keep your design organized and communicative—but also keep your viewers on their toes.

gridoploganger.

2005-11-09T12:09:00.000-08:00

Ok...I agree? This essay about the limitless uses for the grid system would be very informative for the uninformed, but since I already know everything, I got kinda bored and kept playing with my dogs instead of reading. Sure, the grid brings order and makes things easier to lay out, but is it "the basis for democratic behavior"?

Then he starts talkin bout Pythagoras and the Greeks and the Golden Section, and it kind of starts to make sense. I think about what I know about these thinkers (then I think about that movie Pi) and it becomes clear to me that the grid IS necessary for the continuation of life! Just like the spiral and the Golden Section can be found everywhere in nature, so too can the grid be found in all that is good design. If there were NO grid there would be BAD design and

a
people would be pissed off all the time from looking at ugly stuff all day
b
they would take it out on everybody else and there would be all kinds of domestic abuse
c
people would start fights with strangers cause they get no lovin at home, wars would break out over stupid shit, those in power would manipulate all that the public knows, civil unrest would run rampant, and everybody would die all because some jackass designers refused to use the grid to make things pretty and make people happy...

...or is this happening already?

troubled rudy

2005-11-09T11:08:00.000-08:00

First, I don't think we should worry so much. "Type is only half the story and how type is used is what really counts. Educate users and crummy rip-off versions will simply disappear." I agree with this, and think it expresses my beliefs as well.

I think it's ridiculous that typefaces cannot be copyrighted. why would anyone spend a whole lot of time to make a fantastic typeface, only to not be able to protect it and have everyone steal it. i know i'd rather make a copyrighted illustration myself.

Where do we draw the line though? I honestly don't know. It seems almost as impossible to define what a typeface is as it is to define art. is type utilitarian, and when does it become too illegible to be called a typeface? I really don't know and don't think there will be a solution. just make em copyrightable, and we won't have the problem.

van-der-lans

2005-11-09T10:54:00.000-08:00

The one thing about this essay that really bothered me, and even had me talking to myself was on page 225 when the author asked ". . . if a typeface is considered illegible, is it still a typeface?" Huh? Well, if you can't distinguish a typeface as being letters, I would say no, it definately is not a typeface. If you can't makeout the alphabet, then it is just a series of pictures. It still maybe good design, but not a typeface. Now, if a designer uses a typeface (that was originally legible) in a design in such a way as to make it illegible, thats a different story.

I really had no idea that typeface designs weren't copyrightable (is that even a word?) and while I do understand the logic behind it somewhat, it still seems pretty stupid. I mean, what person with reasonable intelligence can't see the obvious difference in design between say helvetica and garamond? Do they really think that someone could claim the copyright to the alphabet itself just because their typeface design was copyrighted? Would someone? Hm. People are pretty much jerks these days, maybe someone would. But anyhow, it seems that VanderLans' main argument is that we need to be able to copyright typeface designs in order to prevent people and companies from ripping off pre existing typefaces and to save the beauty and integrity of type. Unfortunately, I don't think that it would work that way. First of all, even if the copyright laws were changed, wouldn't it be pretty easy for someone to just change a typeface ever so slightly and then say "Eureka! It's my own, completely original typeface!"? Seems like they probably would. And also, even if you did prevent people from stealing typeface designs and making cheaper, uglier copies, that doesn't neccessarily mean that the original ones that were produced would be any better. Unfortunately, people are always looking for the thing that is easier, faster, cheaper. And as long as these "knockoff companies" are producing typefaces that anyone can easily buy over the internet for cheap, theirs are the ones that will abound.

type

2005-11-09T07:31:00.000-08:00

CRAP! ok tobias i swear i had this done on time. i did it at like, 3:00. but chris just called me and said "i can't read your thing, it is green and says draft" so now i am going to try to send it again as the real thing. i hate fucking technology. fuck blogs. blogs and text messaging make me feel old and incompetent:

that is total bullshit that you cannot copyright a typeface. whose idea was that? i would like to kick his ass. at first i thought this was going to be a napster-esque sob story about copyright infringement and stealing and whatnot. i mean people are always going to take shit that isn't theirs and take credit for it. but the fact that in the united states it is perfectly legal to do that with a typeface is just ridiculous. the argument about type being "utilitarian" and one typeface not being artistically different from another just doesn't make any sense. i mean yea yea, a lot of typefaces look really similar, especially to people who aren't nerdy design majors, but there is still enough difference in them that they can be considered individual artistic creations. thereore they should be copyrighted. this is not rocket science. i mean i don't really have that much to say about this article other than i totally agree with it, but i do think it is sad that type companies are having a hard time staying open because they can't make a profit because everyone is stealing their shit. and i mean i guess you could say that we don't need the big companies just to have people who want to create new typefaces. i mean in the past, typeface design was an individual endeavor. However, i doubt if somebody like baskerville or whoever would have been inspired and motivated and kept churning out type if he new that his shit was going to get jacked and he would get no recognition for it. i mean the process of creating a typeface is long and frustrating and i would not really want to do it if i new all my hard work was just going in the toilet because some asshole in new jersey or wherever can just copy it and be like "yea, this is my original type design, what bitch?". ok i have to go on a field trip. later.

yea, so that was it, and i swear it was totally done on time.

CULT

2005-10-23T16:24:00.000-07:00

Ok, Ummm I really didnt know what to say to this. Lowercase letters...hmmmm well i think they are easier to read than capitals. Is that enough? Is that all I have to say for this one? Well I read this wonderful critical writing on the use of using all lowercase letters ahnd really nothing came to mind. I have seen several poems though that use all lowercase writing. There's also a book called the House of Leaves, I believe that was what it was called. Well this book was really messed up. Stuff was written on the page diagnally, vertically and just jumbled on the page at parts, really crazy page layouts. But anyways there was a few pages where everything was written in just lowercase letters. Also sometimes the author even left out the punctuation. Now that was hard to read, but over all i think everything in lower case is just easier read than capitals, even though when i print I rarely use lowercase letters. Usually all caps. I think this is kind of coming back though. I've noticed in stuff my little sister types, esp when she sends an email or stuff like that, that she never uses caps, and rarely uses punctuation. I think it comes from all her instant messaging to friends. I think when people instant message people they rarely write correctly, and after doing that often they just get used to not capitalizing stuff or using correct punctuation. Hmm.... I think that's all I have to say. Maybe ill think of some more before Tue. It was just too hard to write or think, or anything like that after being at a Bengals game and watching a nasty slaughter. damn them steelers, damn them in lower case letters.

I crave brains!!!

2005-10-23T14:08:00.000-07:00

Wow, I completely forgot about this. Sorry to all of you who were anxiously awaiting my deep thoughts and witty comments on this essay. Right.

Honestly, the first thing thought as I read this essay is that I can say with one hundred percent certainty that I have never ever thought this in-depth about design. So while on one hand I'm glad to be thinking critically about design and all, on the other hand, my head kinda hurts. Something random: it amuses me for some reason to think that design is so relatively new as a profession that its roots are called "modernism."

This really seems to be a continuation of something we always end up discussing in class; do you need to have concrete reasoning and logic behind your design, or is it okay do do something just for the sake of style? There seems to be a fine line between appreciating the past and being controlled by it and letting it constrict your choices. A lot of the modernist principles of design still seem relevant, but should we be constantly evolving and moving foward rather than still using the old standards? Really I think I need to go back and read this essay at least one more time in order to fully appreciate it. Maybe I should take notes this time.

Zombies

2005-10-23T13:27:00.000-07:00

The past is everything to our future. How are we to learn how to make great designs if we know nothing of our past? You cannot ignore the things of the past- you might wind up looking like an ass. It is better to learn from other peoples mistake than your own, if you can help it. But the past is also one of the best places for inspiration. I think that Keedy is to interested in putting a label on what design is. It is not important to be in a category, it is important that design makes you feel something. I am very uninspired by this essay, why is everybody so down on design?

ALL KAPS...

2005-10-23T12:06:00.000-07:00

"IT'S UGLY LIKE 'LOOK AT YOU IT'S A DAMN SHAME', JUST REMEMBER ALL CAPS WHEN YOU SPELL THE MAN'S NAME..." - MADVILLAIN

MADNESS. GET RID OF CAPS ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THEY ARE'NT REALLY NECESSARY? AIYO, I ONLY USE CAPS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I'M LIVIN'...ALL CAPS ALL DAY, YOU FEEL ME? IT'S WHAT SEPERATES THE MAN FROM THE BEAST. AND I DON'T EVEN MESS WITH HOLDIN DOWN THE SHIFT KEY EITHER: I TAPE DOWN THE CAPS BUTTON! I TYPE IN, DESIGN WITH, AND WRITE ONLY IN CAPS SO YOU KNOW THAT I'M NOT MESSING AROUND. I TAKE THIS SH*T SERIOUSLY...

Seriously folks, I don't know what to think about the ommission capital letters. Like Mr. McMurtrie says, we've been conditioned to read and expect a cap to start a sentence, to begin a proper name, and to EMPHASISE an important point. Many written languages exist without any form case differentiation, but Western languages use the Cap. I guess we could get by without them, but do we need to?

So what's the big deal? Do we NEED them? No, but it makes typography a little more colorful right? When I capped out "need" you read it and gave it a little emphasis didn't you? I guess I could have put it in italics or underlined it, but big caps make a strong impression. I am guilty of never using caps when I email or text message somebody because I'm a lazy dude. When I write or type my name I rarely capitalize the t or the j, but I could if I wanted to. There is far more typographic versatility when you have 26 extra letters to play with, and people like to play.

(one day later): What the hell? Are Sam and I the only one's who read this thing? You wankers...

Zombie

2005-10-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

Well as i read this article I am not really sure what to think of it. I didnt really get much from the reading.

First I wanna say that i dont care whats postmodernist and what mondern its all part of the evolution of design. However, there are a few points that i agree and disagree with.
Mr. Keedy says "We don't need to conserve our past and resist change. We need to construct our future theoretical discourse, carefully, around the particular and exciting context of design. We must allow ourselves to look at design in new and challenging ways, we must look for-ourselves." I agree that we should push design and look for new ways but, I think that it is immature to say that we dont need to conserve our past. The past is where we evolved fromand we should respect that and learn to grow from that. Designers should grow and take what they have learned and continue pushing design or start pushing design.

I never have much to say so this is it. And im at work so i gotta get back to watching the Bengals game.

Zombie Mondernism

2005-10-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

This was a hard one to get throught...who cares about Modernism or Post-modernism. What is all the fuss about? This article just went on and on and on about pretty much the same thing. Why should it matter if you are referred to as a Modernist or a Post-modernist as long as your design is good. It isn't like either one was a huge movement in the art world anyhow, so I say just let it be.

Alicia Combs

zombies....blahghg BRAINS!

2005-10-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

As I read this article, all I kept thinking was "why is it so important whether design is modernist or postmodernist?" I don't care how you label my design or illustration. As long as you like it, I don't care where you think it fits in or doesn't fit in.

As for conservative values in design, I think that's understandable. Everything is about money. Sure there are always going to be radicals who make their millions by doing something totally off-the-wall. Neville Brody sure tried some new things and he's at the tippy top of things, right? But people like to play it safe, especially with their money. Big businesses don't want to spend shit-tons of money on advertising that might be too edgy or different for the paying public to understand. It just seems that tradition and conservatism don't scare people, so companies stick with conservative design, so that's where the money is.

I do think, however, that experimentation is important. I think that Michael Rock is crazy when he says "Perhaps the most socially irresponsible work is the overdesigned, overproduced, typographic stunts that serve no real function, speak only to other designers and the cultural elite, and through opulence and uselessnessrevel in a level of consumption that glorifies financial excess."

I think that's nuts. Typographic stunts can be particularly amazing. I think making design for design sake is absolutely necessary. Looking through collected books, the interesting images are usually nice to look at because it's experimental. We see beer and bank advertisements everday, but seeing design that resembles a painting or collage begins to be more interesting. That's why I love some of my favorite illustrators. They push the limit of the page, but sometimes it's almost like they're pushing the limits of design. They include type and layouts in their illustration, and often end up being better "design" than most Design that I see, even though they're purely visual and often hardly conceptual.

I hate elitism, but I do think it's important for designers to make things that may confuse the general public, but might inspire other designers who know this "language" and care about these values.

However, I look forward to this zombie outbreak. I read my survival guide and I'm heading to super walmart to stand my ground. anyone who wants to come with me, that's cool. they won't get my brains....god damn zombies.

Zombie Modernism

2005-10-23T08:39:00.000-07:00

This essay is a bunch of bull and repetitious.
“Univers as not a dyed-in-the wool san serif. The range of strokes was greater, though remaining within the overall sans serif format. Univers walked tall alongside jobbing sans serif and Helvetica, and outmaneuvered them simply because of its concessions to roman type.” Come on, what the hell.

Anyway from the Author’s stand point.....

Mr. Keedy seems to be saying. . . One can appreciate the past but to stay in the past is to become stagnate and die. One must accept change and evolve to grow to survive. And that is all that I have to say.

From Debbie

5 Snaps

2005-10-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

The essay “The Cult of Lowercase” mentioned various poets who experimented with typography and practiced their craft by using all lowercase letters. The author failed to mention e.e. cummings, who declared himself as being “an author of pictures, a draughtsman of words.”

Now it’s true cummings didn’t eliminate capitals entirely, but he certainly did have unorthodox ways of applying them. I guess what strikes me about the capital letters and their use debate is that throughout his career e.e. cummings printed his name in lowercase, but many publishers of his work insist on printing his name E.E. Cummings, my point being that even in art it seems capitals are dear to tradition.

There is some evidence that the poet only used lowercase letters when he was writing to close friends and “may it not be tricksy” on a title page. Some publishers that print his name in lowercase think they are maintaining the legacy of the writer in more than just his work but also by the presentation of his name. I could never bring myself to write correspondence in sans serif typefaces and in lowercase because it is not me (please disregard the fact that this blog is in sans serif). Picture this:

This is Sam Reno giving a shout out to the Advanced Type class!
this is sam reno giving a shout out to the advanced type class

Although you may disagree, the latter sentence just does not feel like me. On the other hand, the only reason why I remember a damn thing about e.e. cummings from high school is because of the way his name appeared in his poems. Like Emily Dickenson, he had frankly annoying ways of utilizing type but they are still two of my favorite poets today, partly because their unique typographical identity made their work more memorable.

I think McMurtrie is right in his idea that capital letters have only been around so long because of tradition. Personally I don’t mind sentences without capital letters—but only where there’s a purpose. The following AIM scenario drives me nuts:

A. sup foo
B. n2mh
A. word
B. u goin 2 mikes
A. dood yea gettin smashed did u see jill dancing on the table
B. yea got pics
A. wat did seth say 2 u last nite
B. he came up 2 me and wuz all like sup woman and i wuz all shut the f*ck up i aint yo woman dis wman got a name and yall gonna use it and i gave the mofo 5 snaps
A. 5 snaps????????
B. dats wat i said 5 snaps
A. lmao

Really, people. I can appreciate a general bastardization of western alphabets and languages but the above makes me grit my teeth (speaking of which, did you know that design students have a habit of grinding their teeth more than other demographics, according to a local dentist office?). Even so I realize that typing this way is indicative of personality and *gulp* culture. Ergo, the same way THAT USING ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING IN CYBERSPACE, using lowercase can also bring across personality, emotion, and a particular je ne sais quoi in communication.

I don’t think we’ll get rid of capitals any time soon; they'd be really difficult to phase out in practical terms. Besides that they’re much too fun to design with.

Zombies...

2005-10-21T13:34:00.000-07:00

Did I miss something? I don't think I got the memo stating that it matters how your design work is labeled. It must be important to the "Modernists" and "Post-Modernists" because it's comical that these people really get their panties in a bunch when you don't call them by the correct name. If modernism is really just claiming everything they see that's appealing to their eye is modernist, I don't see how it can be claimed as a movement in the first place. Post-modernists seem to me like they haven't really done anything special to be claimed as a movement either because if they had, there wouldn't really be an argument going on, would there? All in all, I still am confused what the big labeling conflict is all about in the first place.

Although I'm stuggling to find many things to bring away from this article, there are two things I found interesting. One, I don't believe there is a certain style of design that is universally suited for all clients (contrary to the modernist's thinking). Two, I was really happy with the usage of the word "retarded" in the article.

So there's my modernist essay, since everything's modernist (just ask a modernist).

Rumors....sorry this is so late

2005-10-03T13:52:00.000-07:00

I agree with some of the points that Fraterdeus made, but I have to say that his jet ski metaphor is a little out there. With the development of the internet and computers it has made it easier for designers to use trashy fonts. But if the designer knows what they are doing, well thought out type will still be used. Because font software is accessible to just about everyone, trashy type will continue to be created everyday. Good type is still designed everyday, but since the computer it makes it easier to be lazier and produce trashy type.

Apologize for being late. Rumors...

2005-10-03T08:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry for being late. Last night when i went to post it said there was a scheduled down time for reconstruction, or something like that. I swear I'm not lying. Any way, I didn't get much out of this thing really anyways, so its ok if you didn't get a chance to read mine. Like some others said, I totally missed the jet ski comparison. I understood what he was saying about anyone can make fonts now with font making programs, which at times manages to create trash type. But then i wonder, how can you call something a person made, as in a type face trash. Yeah it might not be as nice as fonts that have been made by hand years ago, but that "trash" type face that an amateur might have made, could have made a design he was working on 100 times better. Yeah it might not be a good typeface for every project, but who knows when you might be working on a project and you might find that crappy font to be perfect for what your trying to make. I think if you can find a use for a type face, or even if you make a few dollars off a typeface, then how can you call it trash? Obviously its good for something. I think some people are afraid of embracing technology and letting it become a part of the design world. It's going to happen, and this wave he talks about, I feel is just going to become a bigger and bigger wave, which might not ever crash. I do agree that there are type faces or fonts that have been created that look so much nicer than a typeface a 10 year old came up with on a creating fonts program. That doesn't mean his font is crap. It could have a use who knows. It's time as designers to realize the world we live in changes, and yeah some changes are bad and some are good, but I think we need to experience all changes to realize which are good and bad, and if that means using some shitty type faces, well then damnit use them, don't just bag them before trying them.

Due dates are hard, chaos is easy (according to Newton)

2005-10-02T17:01:00.000-07:00

Death of Typography

It really frightens me that someone who is in an art-based field could compare grunge typefaces and distorted letters the death of typography. Where is this guys mind? I’m sure everything he’s ever made is done in Futura and Garamond because they’re more like “programs” than any kind of typeface that might push the limits. If there isn’t someone constantly pushing the limits and testing what you can get away with, who’s to say what the limits are? Weather you like alternative design or think it’s ugly, it helps us all, even the Garamond lovers. Without all the so-called “jet-skiers”, who would move the industry forward? Conservatism in design risks becoming stagnant. You never know what you can get away with until you try. Trash type is a trend. I don’t think many people think it will be popular forever, but I do think many people can appreciate it for its experimentation with legibility.

I thought Newton’s quote turned up some interesting ideas. Order is important. Even trash design has to have some kind of order to be successful. Even in the Dadaists you can find some kind of order and their movement was based partially on randomness. But I don’t think order is as difficult to make as the author makes it seem. There is even order in chaos, even if Newton is a tough sell on the principal. The human eye likes order and right now the human eye likes trash type… Interesting concept, thanks to all the jet-skiers out there we can find out what kind of order is in trash type that makes it so appealing. I’m down for trash type so don’t be a hater.

-chris ritter

Rumors of Death

2005-10-02T16:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry guys i know its a little late, but better late than never.
Anyways, while I was reading the article by Peter Fraterdeus on the Rumors of Typography, I thought, what the hell does Jet ski's and northwestern Washington have anything to do with typography. I just really didnt make the connection besides we are all "terminally immature kids who are rebelling against their eternally authoritarian elders". Besides that, I do feel that Fraterdeus did have a point and that there is alot of bad fonts, however i feel that if the font, weather it be good or bad fits the context that you are working in and helps your design, then use it. If a font is truly a bad font, then im sure it wont be used and it will disapear and the good fonts will stay. Peter says "The wave of trash type and grunge "typography" is just that- a wave" Well, this article was written in1996 and I think that if trash fonts were just a wave, then i think that the wave would have passed and we would be on to something else and people like Fraterdeus would writting articles saying how the new generation of designers are crap and we will all suck.

Well, i have nothing else to say. Then first two pages of this article ment nothing. I got more information out of that last couple of paragraphs then the whole article.

A little late... but WHO DEY!!! Oh yeah... Rumors...

2005-10-02T12:51:00.000-07:00

After I read the article, I opened up Suitcase on my Powerbook… 2,041 fonts. I have over two thousand fonts on my computer. Now, for most projects, about 2,020 of those fonts are completely useless. But I strongly feel that at some point, if the font suited the project, any of those 2,041 fonts could prove to be extremely useful. Lately I have been filing all of those fonts into categories (sans-serif, serif, dings, dirty…) and I have over 100 stressed/dirty fonts. I have found myself using more and more of these types of fonts lately. I plan on using some of those fonts in my senior project (motocross apparel company). I have even found a way to sneak some stressed/dirty fonts into a package design for Old Spice (and it is in the final round, along w/ 2 other designs). Am I using them because they are trendy? Sure, maybe a little bit. But mostly I am I using them because they fit.

Downcome, a typeface by Misprinted Type, is a modification of a typeface called Alternate Gothic designed by Morris Fuller Benton. So, they question I raise is should Downcome even be considered as a separate typeface, or should it be in the Alternate Gothic family?

And sure there are thousands upon thousands of shitty fonts out there. But like Oliver said, who cares? It doesn’t bother me. There are people out there who think they are type designers because the computer has enabled them to crank out a type in a few hours. There are also people who think they are graphic designers because they made a logo using a pirated version of Photoshop. Who cares? Bad design only makes my work look better.

And Oliver, I agree… what ever happened to the “fine” in fine art?

I know I'm late but here is my take

2005-10-02T12:42:00.000-07:00

The New Typography

I have now read through this piece five times and I'm still scratching my head a little. Laszlo was of course talking in the year 1919 so this is a piece of theoretical writing which is one of the reasons it is so confusing. I know it has been said before that he was a forward thinker. Yet we are in the time beyond what he was thinking forward to. But what I really felt ( and the only thing I could really glean from the piece) he was saying is that with the dawning of new technique typography will be a form of art and not just function as communication.

As noted in this quote,
" The new Typography is a simultaneous experience of vision and communication"

The New Typography...is confusing.

2005-10-02T10:47:00.000-07:00

Our man Moholy-Nagy is quite oppinionated in his views on typography stating "It MUST be communication in its most intense form." and "The emphasis MUST be on absolute clarity...".

"That's just like, your opinion man..." -the Dude.

It just depends on what your goals are in creating something with typographical interest. It doesn't necessarily have to be completly legible to be interesting and to convey a message just as a painting doesn't have to be representational to be appreciated. I guess it should be noted that dear Laszlo couldn't have known how far the boundaries would be pushed in the world of typography in the years following the early 20's publication of his essay.

However, it is hard to grasp Moholy-Nagy's concept that photography will replace painting and illustration, that film and motion picture will replace books, and that the telephone will render letterwriting all but obsolete. It is the year 2005 and thanfully none of these things have happened! Using photographs instead of paintings and illustrations on posters gives you the advantage of "clarity", but what about expression and feeling? This not to say that photography is lacking in this respect, but if "...the effective poster must act with immediate impact on all the psychological receptacles..." then isn't painting and illustration just as effective in evoking emotion and encouraging thoughtful reflection?

At the time of Laszlo's (can I call you Laszlo? It's much easier..) existence, photography was the hot new ish so it is understandable why he was all about it, but his comments were obtuse and a little short sighted.

And what the hell is an "individual-exact/collective-exact" relationship to the world? Am I missing the point here?

Sorry. My life's soundtrack is a bunch of random hip-hop lyrics. Here's one for today:

[Aesop Rock]
"I start my city with a brick (one brick)
Then add another brick (two bricks)
Brick by brick, I manufacture homes for fallen angels
I ain't no great Samaritan, that's just the way the game goes
Respect the polars but acknowlege middle-value rainbows..."

Rumors of the Deathof Typeography...

2005-10-02T10:09:00.000-07:00

This article had some good, valid points. There are many people who believe that just because they have manipulated a typeface, they've created a new font. I understand that many typefaces have variations, which indeed was a transition from the root, but it was just that...a transition from the ROOT. People who try and change type that was produced years ago by letterpress isn't exactly authentic in my opinion. I like the quote by Eric Gill: "Letters are things, not pictures of things". Then when describing the difference between a fontographist and a type designer, he says it is simple: Ask a fontographist to draw a three-inch high roman S with a penci, without tracing. Then it will soon be known that there's isn't any real knowledge of the shapes of leters there. This is the problem I have with people today trying to create a new typeface by simply mangling an old one.

Unfortunately, I do agree that some graphic designers are attracted to this improper use of type, and have a hard time getting away from it. But to say "Graphic Designers..." insinuating that all designers do this, I don't agree with. It is sad that because there are some with no idea, sometimes as to what they are designing, that all designers get put in this category. But the other part of this paragraph is also unfortunate: "..since our visual circuits are so overloaded with snap, crackle, and buzz, people don't even notice letters anymore...". Though this may be true to an extent, it should be our duty to fix it. Lets weed out these bad fonts and they will eventually evaporate. There is no way this kind of type will succeed.

~Alicia

Rumors

2005-10-02T09:11:00.000-07:00

As I read this article, I was saying to myself "yeah yeah, this whole dirty type thing is just a trend. he's right.." but then when I saw that the article is nearly 10 years old, I started to think differently.

I like the grungy type. I think for the right design, there are lots awesome dirty fonts that look just great. Is it a trend? I dunno. It depends on what defines a movement and what defines a trend. I would say that dirty, grungy font is still popular, so that would mean we've been worrying about this for like, 10 years already. seems a little long for a trend.
I dont' really care much about the flood of shitty fonts being made by 15 year olds on their pirated software. I don't care if i pay a shit-ton of money for the type, or if i download it off some shitty font site. if the typeface looks good and fits the design I want to make, then I'm going to use it. The good fonts will float to the top because people will use them. the shit fonts that 15 year old Billy makes at 3 in the morning with blood running em and spikes everywhere will disappear because no one wants to use them so people will stop providing them. If you're the idiot using those fonts, you probably won't make it as a designer anyway, so we won't see your awful work with awful fonts and it will all just basically disappear.

I will agree that making stressed dirty typefaces is probably easier than making a nice super-measured out font (I've never done it, so i really wouldn't know). It's just like my opinion of fine art. I think all the shitty artwork out there is just because making really good artwork is too hard. It's too hard to draw and paint really really well, so people bullshit about their art and make it seem about a "message" when really, it's just because the asshole can't paint or draw for shit. That's another story though.

Grunge fonts....use em if you like em. don't if you have them.
don't worry so much about the idiots pumping out crappy fonts on their home computers. if they really are bad fonts, dont use em and don't worry about the idiot who does. their work will look stupid because of it, which just means less competition for you.
....can we just talk about nazis again?

Well it has not happened yet

2005-10-02T08:16:00.000-07:00

I know that Moholy-Nagy was a great designer, but this essay is a little far fetched for me to wrap my head around. I think that typography will always exist in some form or another. It is in our human nature to write or use letters to communicate and even design with. It may be in a different form that we see typography. Take the internet for example, it is a wide world full of type ( good, bad and sometimes very bad ) that we see almost everyday. I know that not every person owns a computer but there are so many people that use them at work or at school or at the public library. I think that now in 2005 we have an ever larger forum for using type and making quality designs with type just inside the internet realm. I do believe that typography will continue to be very prevalent in our lives because of the constant technology that demands it to be present for communication purposes.
The internet is a fairly new form of communication, so I feel that it will only get better over time, and so will the use of type inside of the internet. The internet might have been a si-fi novel like idea to Moholy-Nagy, but I think if he was around today he might retract his "New Typography" theory. The world will always use type, and new inventions will need type to fuel the evolution of technology.
It is hard for me to grasp the concept of not having books, magazines, newspapers or any other type of paper with words on it. But you never know anything is possible. I see the world in the future having typography but the surface that it lives on has changed. I think that is what it is all about, we will not change the way we use typography it will just come in a different format.

"Rumors of the Death of Typography..."

2005-10-02T08:14:00.000-07:00

The first thing that comes to mind about this article is that the title is just a tad over-dramatic, don't you think? Whether or not I like the typography and fonts the author is talking about, it makes me giggle a little to think of how many different generations of artists (and probably people in all sorts of other professions as well) have lamented over the new generation's ruining of their traditions and fundamental principles. As I read the article, I was reminded of our last discussion. This author really seems to be making the same argument about the sanctity of type and the travesties these computer-weilding "font designers" are creating. I was relieved to read however, that he does go on to speak about the second part of his title: "...Have Been Greatly Exaggerated." I agree that all this "degenerate type" is fashion. The majority of them will fade away leaving little evidence that they even existed. Now helvetica, trajan, gill sans, futura--these are the typefaces that will obviously endure no matter what the current trends are. I do understand the author's irritation at the glut of self proclaimed type designers armed with only a computer and some software churning out annoying, useless fonts, but I think it's really just not worth getting all worked up over. Bad design is out there, its going to happen, and it can happen whether someone uses helvetica or burner. And while I do tend to think most of these typefaces are pretty stupid and ugly (yes, those are technical industry terms) I have seen a few designs using them that I think were pretty successful. So to me the moral of the story is that people have to get used to the fact that things change, and not always for the better. But as the author points out, that does not mean that good typography is dead, you just might have to wade through a lot more shit these days to find it. P.S. I feel like a dummy because I still don't know how to insert a page break on this thing!

Rumors...

2005-10-02T07:56:00.000-07:00

Sigh. Although comparing degenerate type to jet skis is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, I have to say that I kind of agree with the guy. Not about jet skis, people should be able to ride their jet skis wherever the hell they want. But I do think that the whole ugly, illegible type thing is just a trend. Obviously whenever you have any kind of new technology that is widely available to the public you are going to have unqualified people creating things. People didn't create typefaces like "Burner" back in the day because of the huge amount of time and expertise it took to create a typeface when you are using a letterpress. Now that everything is on computers, people can bust out a font in a few hours. So of course there is going to be a lot of crap out there. I think everyone knows that. I also agree with Fraterdeus that it is ridiculous for the people that create these typefaces to claim that they are "changing the nature of legibility".I tried to go to the website listed under the quote where someone is arguing that, "Burner allows the reader to become part of the message by forcing him or her to understand the type...", but it said it was no longer available. Whatever. I mean I'm sure that someone somewhere had used the typeface well. I'm not saying that all new type is crap, I just think that the people that are creating it and the amount of time that goes into it are nowhere near what they used to be. Therefore, Burner will never have the same legitimacy as say, Baskerville. Then again, people in his day thought his stuff was crap. So who knows. Anyway, I totally agree with the author that clarity and elegance will always have sway over trendiness and kitsch when it comes to type. Seriously though man, get over the jet ski thing. I have to go to work.

The New Typography (As Of 1919)

2005-10-02T07:48:00.000-07:00

I occasionally pride myself on having a rather extensive vocabulary, at least in comparison to the average American's linguistic capacity. I did, however, find myself struggling to comprehend the majority of this essay. It seemed Laszlo Moholy-Nagy must have cross-referenced every word with a thesaurus. It was due, I presume, to the translation from German to English, as many specificities are lost in translation, but I digress.

The article, I admit, at first appeared extremely narrow-minded. Here again, we are subjected to a designer dictating limitations and regulations on typography, telling us, "...Legibility-communication may never be forced into a preconceived framework, for instance a square."

I recouped this original hypothesis slightly, however, when I read the specifics of the original publishing date and reprinting adaptation. This shed new light on the article; a minute epiphany, if you will.

Laszlo Moholy-Nagy all of a sudden seemed very forward-thinking. He expresses looking at new developments in design and embracing them. His downfall, in my own humble opinion, is that he seems to discard what has come before, stating that photography had replaced poster-painting.

This is the modern day equivalent of designers disregarding past processes and procedures such as the letterpress and hand-made designs. Or the equal of photographers turning their proverbial backs on film and only embracing digital functionality; painters disposing of oils for acrylic.

While there is immeasurable merit in new technologies, we should not place limitations on ourselves. To view a computer as the only source for design would be irresponsible and asinine.
A computer, no matter how complex, will, one can only hope, never be able to replicate hand-made intricacies, hand-rendered illustrations, or human control over aesthetics. Nor would we want it to. The day a computer can recreate the precious marks of the human hand and visual decisions of the human mind, we will be replaced with design-robots and made into human fuel to power their creative processors. The end is nigh! Repent, sinners!

-Adam McIver

"Rumors of the Death of Typo"

2005-10-02T07:12:00.000-07:00

The whole idea of moving on in the world and experiencing new things enhances our growth mentally. When designing a type, one should always start from the foundation to appreciate the art form of clarity and elegance of a type design that was skillfully drawn to perfection. Incorporating the knowledge from history of type helps one develop a scence of direction and a focal point of where to start. Starting a font or design takes patience as well as involvement with the visual image itself. One might find that the clear visual signs are widely understood methods of messages that are transmitted quickly and if not seen visually accepting or understood, it will quickly evaporate in time. Those new fonts "Trash Type" in some aspects can carry some lasting value that we may learn from and develope our own ideas with exposure for new creative designs. Good or bad, these fonts should not be dismissed so easily because learning from good and bad art designs enhance our ablity to become a better designer.

Debbie

Moholy-Cow, Batman... New Typography

2005-09-29T19:22:00.000-07:00

Honestly, half the time I spent reading this article I was trying to figure out what Moholy-Nagy was talking about, and the other half wondering if he even knew what he was talking about.

“The new typography is a simultaneous experience of vision and communication,” he writes. He says earlier in the article that clarity should be absolutely emphasized and communication should never be impaired by an a priori esthetics. How can you design something that appeals optically and not have aesthetics play a major role? Does type have to be clear and legible to be good? Can’t we simply appreciate a group of letterforms without having to figure out how to read it? I saw a lot of projects at the last critique that didn’t need to be clear and legible— because they simply looked interesting. Many people like Chinese characters because of their visual appeal but can’t read a stroke of it.

And then he goes on to brush aside hieroglyphics, calling them “inexact,” and refers to other ancient systems as lacking the clarity of modern languages and therefore lacking efficient means of communication. Nay, nay, I say. How can you call hieroglyphics inexact after you look at a wall carved up with those symbols and think how long it took to come up with something like that, not to mention the thought that went into preparing the inscriptions on those monuments? Inexact? I think not.

I do agree with Moholy-Nagy’s statement about the effective poster being one that impacts all the senses. But he insinuates that using photography exclusively—and not poster painting at all—will increase poster design’s effectiveness. I feel that eliminating any kind of art-making from a designer’s oeuvre with the sole exception of photography limits design, not liberates. To make interesting and dynamic design, I think it’s necessary to know about as many techniques and disciplines as one can because this opens up broad avenues of exploration and aids in the solving of difficult design problems.

To say that technology will eradicate past methods of art-making and design is to lose the fundamental skills that brought us to where we stand as designers in today’s world. New technology is merely a tool—a new way of stating a design problem’s solution. “New typography” embraces every tool and emotion and experience out there and that is what gives design its “elasticity, variability, and freshness . . .”

existential guide to hate...i mean type

2005-09-13T05:16:00.000-07:00

"In the garrish mirrored and pseudocrystal-festooned canival-of-the-nouveau-riche milieu of Donald Trump's Hyatt, a gathering of those obsessed with the subtlest of detailswas staged..."

Sounds great, sorry I missed that one.

I know there are hordes of type geeks out there that notice things like "the insouciant teist of Palatino s's descender" or the "hungry maw of a lowercase Souvenir e...", I just don't think I'm one of them, and at the type geek convention of 1987, things were discussed that seem a little outdated. The adjustment and more importantly the digitizing of type was the hot, controversial issue. A battle was being waged in 1987 as to what would be the future of type design, and it pitted two schools of thought against one another: the purists, and the technoids.

Guess who won that little skirmish.

It seems ridiculuous to think about now, but how could type design not have grown away from being carves out of hunks of lead. Big metal letters didn't allow much freedom or flexibility, which the purists love. But they had to have seen the future of type as being digitized, desktop publishing as the new method, and the whole world being able to molest their cherished relics from ages ago. Change could have been embraced by the die hard purists to ease all the bitching and moaning that went on for years and years about the fate of type design.

If nothing else, this article was informative in that it provided clues as to how ITC decides what to do to an existing typeface, and how they license them to their customers. It is also a glimpse into the past when companies Bitstream used huge CAD machines to build type dot by dot, square by square using some strange and then futuristic sounding Bitmaps.

It's 1987: What the hell is a Bitmap? Ah, those were the days. Metallic colored Corrollas, KRS One's "The Bridge is Over" pumping out of jamboxes and Air Jordan II's on the feet of kids richer than you. But I digress.

Kate's incredibly late/angry post

2005-09-13T03:49:00.000-07:00

Sorry guys, but every time I sat down to do this i couldn't think of anything to say. I could not figure out why such a poorly written and pointless essay had been included in this collection. Then I looked at the author and it all made sense: its one of the guys that edited the freakin' book. So hopefully the other one's are better. Anyway, maybe I'm in too many english classes right now, but i'm not saying that the guy doesn't have any valid points. Its just that this shit jumps all over the place, and he never really expresses what he is trying to say. He has no thesis statement. He proves nothing. I mean the two questions he poses in the beginning of the essay are stupid to begin with, but Heller doesn't even answer them, which i'm pretty sure you're supposed to do in a quote "critical writing". "Are there design conventions for expressing racism?". I guess he tries to prove that there are by talking about the Nazi's. There is no arguing that their propaganda and everything associated with their party had a certain look. And of course today that look will be associated with racism and tyranny. But when he talks about it, it sounds like he is saying that there is something innately evil and menacing about the design. I'll start with the idea of the typeface, since I mildly agree with him there. Yea, Fraktur is intimidating. But if you look at Old English, which is also mentioned in the reading, it has the same characteristics. Slanting lines, angularity of form, points, etc. But nobody associates Olde English with hate. Because the Nazi's didn't use it. He says, "Anything set in Fraktur... takes on a decidely ominous look". No shit Heller! F-ing Nazi's used it. Of course you're going to associate it with evil and hatred. However, dude says himself that, "The Germans did not entertain design extremes...", because they wanted their stuff to reach the common man, the middlebrow. So obviously back in the day in Germany, Fraktur wasn't all that uncommon. And if that's the case, I'm sure that it was not automatically associated with hate at the time. We just see it that after growing up seeing that imagery used in Nazi propaganda. Am I getting too deep here? I'm just saying that the only reason this type is seen as evil (and not simply dramatic and archaic like Old English) is because the Nazi party set a precedent. If they had used Futura, Heller would be all "Futura is the most evil font of all time!!!". So I guess when you go back to his original question, yea there are design conventions for expressing racism. there are design conventions for expressign everything dumbass. But its merely a question of what we subconciously associate certain tpes and images with. Like the swastika. If I wanted something to look racist, and I was boring and didn't have an original thought in my head, yea i might put a swastika on it. But not because it so well designed and so clearly invokes a feeling of hatred that is not based on any historical use of it (this is sarcasm). Because everyone is used to seeing swastikas in Nazi imagery. What retarded Heller doesn't mention is that the swastika is one of the oldest used symbols in the history of amn, and thats its original connotation was luck and goodness. I am sure that there were very few people in China 3000 years ago thinking, "Wow, our symbol for good luck is designed really hatefully". Because it wasn't. The Nazi's didn't design it; hate isn't designed into it. People just get that feeling from it because we now all associate it with Nazi's. I'm sure Hindus (who I'm pretty sure still use the swastika in religious iconography) don't see a swastika and automatically think "hate". Similar to the whole Fraktur thing, if the Nazi's had used a little pink bunny rabbit as their symbol, we would all think little pink bunny rabbits were evil. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I don't have to because its 7:30 in the morning and anyway, my shit isn't going to be in a book. Moving on, Heller's second question is "Can hate be well designed?" Are you fucking serious? That is the stupidest question ever. Of course it can be well designed. Anything can be well designed. I mean i think he basically says that by drooling over how wonderful the Nazi propaganda was for three paragraphs, But then he still claims that the KKK symbology is effective. That shit is obviously not well designed. Dude just keeps contradicting himself. Let me end this essay by ranting about his conclusion statement. First of all, your conclusion statement is supposed to sum up the points you have made in your writing. Since he didn't make any, of course the conclusion statement is going to be retarded. And I quote, "Therefore, the design of hate must be painfully obvious, relying upon tried-and-true symbols and icons that cannot be misconstrued, for they embody a history that cannot, and shoud not, be ignored". what dramatic cheesy bullshit. So basically he's saying you can't design something about hate without using Nazi imagery, or other symbols of hatred from the past. Fuck you Steven Heller, I am a 22 year old student from Ohio with average design skills and ideas and I guarentee (I don't think that's spelled right) that I can design something hateful without using a freakin' swastika or an old German typeface. Anyway that's all i have to say about this writing. Sorry this was more of a rant than a response, and I apologize also for the excessive amount of typos that are in here because i'm not going to proofread this. Even though no one probably read it because I am turning it in right before class. I wonder if I could use this Change Time & Date thing here at the bottom to make it not late. Tobias would probably figure it out. Damn. OK. later.

Here is Chris Ritter’s Post…

2005-09-12T21:23:00.000-07:00

Chris Ritter
ARTG 327
September 11, 2005

Designing hate was an interesting issue, but I don’t think the article sufficiently supported its argument with current designs. I believe that Hitler was a mastermind at controlling art and design for propaganda reasons. Hitler was very interested in the arts and was very much aware of its uses. Using a unified font for propaganda and government use proved to be great for his cause because you would associate anti-Semitic messages to everyday things resulting in brainwashing an entire society. I do believe this is one of Hitler’s greatest decisions for his cause because everything we perceive fonts to communicate is completely sub-conscience. Manipulating what that sub-conscience says is what makes his approach so incredible.

The fact that you can do that is scary since I wouldn’t know what typefaces could communicate “nigger” or “spic” as the article suggests. I may be naive, but I truly don’t believe there are any fonts out there with this kind of baggage, except for maybe the Old English font presented in the article. I looked at a couple websites of organizations that were mentioned, but I didn’t notice any major uniformity except for the lack of good design. I found that it didn’t support the arguments very well. All in all, I believe that it is possible to communicate hate messages through type as easily as any other desirable message type communicates, but I do not believe there is a current type that has that kind of ability as the hate groups I investigated are very poor art directors.

Here is Jeremy Hess’ Post…

2005-09-12T21:22:00.000-07:00

Thinking Inside the box

The essay I read was one of the most rediculous essays
I have ever read. The writers of this essay are very
much against altering type. They are so close minded
to anything new and different that they are getting
lost in the crowd. Maybe if they spent as much time
designing as they do bitching about type faces I would
have heard of them. Upon reading this I began to
think of them as an old high school fottball player
that graduated 20 years ago and never went to college.
He just sits on the bleachers bitching abut what they
are doing wrong and how he would have done it. I
could barely bring myself to read the rest of this
essay because frankly I have better things to do , but
I pushed on.

Carter seems to be one of the few who has an
intelligent arguement about the direction of
typography. I does not believe that typography
stopped after the the metal press was obsolete.
Typography is evovling as our culture evolves and if
it stops our design will remain stagnent in a pool of
over user layuts. The opposition to the modern
typographer is not thinking out of the box. On the
contrary they have built themselves a cage and are
stuck in there own little world. With this mindset
they should by all rights last about 5 seconds in the
design world. As an artist I use typography to reflect
that particular design whatever it may be. If I need
to alter that font for the good of the design then I
will do so. The world moves so fast now that clients
want things done yesterday and the use of typepresses
is going the way of the dodo.

To limit your artistic ability because you have be too
punk and by doing so you are conforming to the ideals
artists hate to align themselves with. The writers of
this essay need to be more free thinking and not htink
inside the box or they will be living in a box. Ha Ha

P.S. Thanks for listening to my nonsense.

E.Romer Article #2 Reaction

2005-09-12T16:42:00.000-07:00

As I read this essay, I came across a particularly true and insightful paragraph. It was on page 22, the second paragraph down. It mentioned that "Certain things work best when we are unaware of them." In the world of type and printed or computerized communication, as designers, we come to notice things that are not working right. We designers need to utilize the functionality of text and fonts. Typography needs to be balanced and has to function in accordance with its surroundings- it needs to serve its purpose. In most cases, this is true because the sheer fact is that most type is used for communication purposes. Typography is also used for elements in design - like using the letter forms for boundaries, repetition, illustration, construction, and symbolism - rather than as pure communication in the form of words.
It always bothers me when I see type or fonts used in a distasteful manner. I guess because, in part, I am schooled in the artform, but I also feel that if you are a legitimate designer, making a body of work that the public will view, you need to establish smart and integrated typography. It can't be an afterthought that was plopped next to a pictorial design. We put so much stock in the graphic design of things that the typography element is often overlooked in the vast majority of signage, advertisements, and logo designs. Integration of graphic design and typography is a difficult relationship to work out, it is often a problem with so many solutions and options that it boggles the mind. It is difficult to make the correct decision about what works best. That is why I liked the quote so much from the essay, it made me understand that type needs to be cohesive and work correctly in its element and it will serve its purpose.

Derek's take on the matter

2005-09-11T21:52:00.000-07:00

Response to An Existential Guide to Type

I think the best quote from the article is Matthew Carter’s

“There are very few things you can say to distinguish type from other kinds of industrial design, One of them is that we design letterforms, obviously. That’s What we draw, but the real product is words. We don’t know how those letterforms are going to be combined linguistically. And essentially we have to make them so they can be combined randomly in any combination. It’s when the thing gets into words, gets printed, that’s the proof of it. That’s when it’s doing its job. So there’s a funny sort of remove. You’re designing something but you have no control over how it’s actually used. We are really word designers, but we can’t be” (32)

This sums up a very good opinion on the matter. Once you have made the typeface you have no control, and that should be understood from the onset. In the other time periods it took a lot more effort to tweak a typeface so much so that when it was finished you had a real piece of design and work to restrike all the letters. But today with the technology the way it is it is so simple to move and change type to fit your every whim. Whether or not it is right isn’t the issue the issue is whether or not it works. If your design is better because you removed a serif then you are justified in your position. You can take the opinion of the type purist’s but if it is going to hurt your ability to make the best piece possible then throw their opinion out the window.

Tim's Response to “An Existential Guide to Type”

2005-09-11T20:06:00.000-07:00

In the article “An Existential Guide to Type,” by Karrie Jacobs, I understand the argument that the author is making, and while I agree with most of the comments dealing with the lost art of understanding the fine and subtle differences in type, I also see a person who seems to be longing for the past instead of embracing the potential in today’s technology and evolution. Sure, modifying a sacred type like Garamond might be considered a horrible thing, but things evolve… as they should. I feel as though a lot of the comments I want to say have already been said, so I thought I would discuss Paula Scher.
Paula Scher is a very interesting woman… The statements I read in the article that deal with her bitching about how ITC murdered Garamond made me think of her book, which I am currently reading, called Bigger is Better. Scher who is widely known for her Swatch Watch poster that used elements of Herbert Matter’s Swiss Travel posters, says “But the Swatch poster, a parody of a revered graphic icon, seemed to rankle a certain percentage of the design community that believes in the sacredness of mid-century modernism.” This seems funny coming from a person who is mad about slight variations in different versions of Garamond.
And on Adam’s comments about the computer, here is another quote from Scher’s book, that I also feel ties into this discussion, “I don’t have anything personal against the computer. I feel about computers the way I feel about cars: I need them, I drive them, I’m fond of them, but I don’t want to hang around and talk about them.” But she’ll gladly sit around and talk about type all day.

Designing Hate Response

2005-09-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

This reading made me think about Hitler and the Nazi party. It's so true that whenever you look at the swastika, one of the first things that come to you is hate. It's a horrible thought that comes along with such a strong use of an icon. Hitler's use of the swastika shows how much a simple symbol can be burned into someones head. As designers this is something that we fight to achieve. Hitler's life is kind of similar to that fashion. He was a man who became a symbol for years. Everyone knows Hitler's face, A student in one of my other Typography class did a work of art that symbolized hitler, and all that was needed was his mustache for everyone to recognize who he was. He was an icon also for the fact of hwo amazing of a leader he was, maybe with not good beliefs, but probably one of the greatest leaders ever. How a person can force hate into so many peoples minds is incredible. To have so many people follow him with such crazy thoughts is mind boggling. Blonde hair blue eyes, the perfect race? Hitler, where was your blonde hair and blue eyes, and weren't you part Jewish? Didn't any of his followers notice this? He's like great design, he got people to feel something, create an attachment, advertise a thought or product that was opposite of what he was and have people buy it. Sounds pretty amazing to me, too bad he couldn't lead for something good. His design work was pretty interesting also. A friend let me borrow a book a year or two back that was art work created by Hitler. Pretty cool stuff. Anyways, to wrap this up, maybe we all need to go a little crazy to get our design to be remembered. Just maybe not that crazy. Hate is bad. Design is good though.

Hate Design Response

2005-09-11T15:53:00.000-07:00

I had never really thought about the impact a simple symbol can have on someone, and never really even considered that the swastika was “good design”. After reading this article I agree with the author that hate can be well designed. If you consider good design to be something that everyone recognizes, and has different feelings about than I think Hitler did the job. A person in their 20s would have to live with their head up their ass to not know what a swastika is. Just like hate in this article, any “concept” can be designed well if it follows certain rules of good design. For example the peace sign has a simple design, and means a lot to almost everyone in the world. Positive feelings can be just as well designed as negative feelings. Even though I thought the article was a bit wordy, I agree with what the author had to say.

Criticism: Type as Discourse Response

2005-09-11T08:38:00.000-07:00

Criticism: Type as Discourse Response

“The Copyright laws in many countries are outdated. Type designs have so far not been included in U. S. Copyright laws.” As a Graphic Designer copyright laws for our designs are our only chances of survival. Without them many of our masterpieces will go unknown and of course “the biggy”, $$$$$$.
The designers of Type having no copyright laws to protect them from their type designs being printed without paying for them, is outrageous in the year of 2005. With today's technology there should be some kind of software with watermarks or something that distorts the fonts during transfer.
“One reason a typeface is considered a masterpiece is because the designer achieved optical harmony in adjusting the size and proportion of the parts. Not mathematically, but esthetically and perceptually.” With the first project in this class I felt that everyone has created their masterpiece in type. The skillful techniques that were used, the clarity that went into each and every symbol/font and topping them off with a touch of elegance. Studying my own symbols have made me realize the work that goes into something that may look simple but is not. My appreciation for type has grown enormously over the last few weeks.

Debbie Jordan

Designing Hate

2005-09-11T07:58:00.000-07:00

After reading the article Designing Hate, it opened my eyes and made me think just how important graphic design and how many different ways design is used. This article was very interesting but it seemed to be more like an article on psychological warfare then design. While I'm not a Nazi lover, the swastika shape, color and over all design of the entire Nazi Army was a brilliant design and it was very successful in what they wanted to accomplish. People from all over the world recognize that symbol as a symbol of hate and even though the days of Hitler are behind us, we still get that feeling and can understand its power. Even in today's times, during the war in Iraq for example, Americans dropped flyers that had some sort of picture and text on them from planes to persuade terrorist to give up. Now, Hitler had a different meaning behind what he was doing than the Americans, but you can see that a symbol or certain colors can create a feeling good or bad in someone's mind.

Thoughts on Designing Hate

2005-09-11T07:42:00.000-07:00

I think the connection between design and the legacy of the Nazis serves to illustrate further the power of design. It's terrible to say, but those guys over at Nazi headquarters were design geniuses! It amazes me to think that through the power of their propaganda, the Nazis were able to sway public opinion towards such a violent and extreme viewpoint. The artists who created the images of Jews as rats, mongrels, and pimps (Heller, p. 42) --- do they bear some responsibility for the holocaust? It really made me think about our role as designers in promoting causes, companies, and ideas. If we don't choose our projects carefully, we could end up with our name attached to a business, group, product, whatever that someday may come back to haunt us. Now, I would hope it wouldn't be an extreme a case as this, but it does get me thinking about what things I would definitely not design for (the republican party, for example).
Another thing this essay made me think about was symbols and their meanings. I wonder, do symbols come loaded with their own meaning, or does our use of them imbue them with meaning? Certain symbols used by the groups discussed in the essay such as the lightning bolt, thrusting arrow, and gunsight (Heller, p.43) seem innately powerful. The swastika, on the other hand, was an ancient symbol even used by our own military at one time, that will now always symbolize the Nazi ideology. To us it means racism, hate, and death; before Hitler used it as his mark, it meant none of these things. Even the fonts used on Nazi propaganda now remind us of something hard and threatening. Just like how you'll never be able to see anything written in the Tide, or Coca-cola, or Ford fonts without thinking of those companies. Using a distinctive font in any campaign, negative or not, can associate the font with the cause forever.
The essay also shows that design can legitimize. It can lend credit to causes sometimes undeserving of that credit. When things are well designed, (or, in the case of some of the hate group publications, designed in such a way that makes them look commonplace and seem as credible as mainstream newspapers) we're more likely to buy them or put our trust in them. Can good design make even undesirable or unworthy products and ideas popular? I definitely think it can. Looking at the Nazis just goes to show that no matter what you're selling, be it tacos or membership in a mass-murdering hate group, if your design is good, more people will be attracted to it.

Adam's Response to An Existential Guide to Type

2005-09-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

"It's just like bing-bing-bing-bing...," he says, hitting the table with a steady, monotonous beat. "You know, rhythm is type. This isn't rhythm. That's nothing more than a tap. The minute you have this-" he adds a second beat with his other hand, "then you're cooking. The idea is that type has a feeling, and if it doesn't have that feeling it just goes..." And here Benguiat makes a noise that defies accurate transliteration. "If it doesn't have that feeling it just goes blaaaaahhh."

What the f***? Did this guy actually say anything? I re-read this excerpt two or three times before giving up on it.

But seriously, I understand both sides of the issue posed in this essay. I see the letterforms as amazing artwork and design by themselves. I appreciate the amount of time the designer puts into perfecting every part and function of the font. That being said, I honestly don't view them with such reverence that I would not alter them if the design would benefit from it.

My first typography teacher (who no longer works for the University and we are all better off because of that fact) chastised me one day for deleting a couple of anchor points from a letter in one of my designs. He claimed by altering the type, I was destroying the type designer's original vision. But if my design would suffer because I upheld the type designer's vision, I didn't understand why the hell I would want to preserve it. A client is just going to care that the piece looks good, not whether or not you upheld the integrity of the font you used.

I view type as another element in the design, like a photograph or illustration. Altering a photograph is essentially destroying the photographer's original piece of art, and the same thing goes for an illustration. But if the overall piece benefits from it, who cares? Possibly the photographer or illustrator, but should we have to worry about that?

I had a hard time reading how arrogant and nit-picky some of the people who attended Type 1987 were. Complaining about the alterations over the years as fonts were tweaked and digitized. They sound like Star Wars geeks who bitched when George Lucas released the Special Editions, or music snobs who think you have to listen to The Ramones and The Clash to say you like punk. I see it in all areas of art, though, from painting to photography, back to design. I think whenever people start to think that you cant do this or that, their creativity starts to go out the door, simply because they are imposing limitations on themselves.

"Digitizing Janson is like playing Bach on a synthesizer." "Bastardizing our heritage."

What arrogant bullsh**. Letterpresses obviously are no longer practical for most things anymore. We have to evolve as technology evolves or we die out. How else are newer generations supposed to view and appreciate the classic fonts unless they are evolved alongside the rest?

I know that this day and age, with our computers, printers and whatnot, that we have lost alot of the blood, sweat, and tears that used to go into this profession, and that's sad, but at some point you have to stop bitching and get on with it. We should recognize the way it used to be done, and in certain instances, revisit those processes. We shouldn't rely fully on the computer, I know that. In many ways, the computer is a crutch, but damn it's a comfortable one.

Designing Hate

2005-09-10T20:08:00.000-07:00

While I was reading this article, I was reminded of a movie I saw last semester called Downfall. It was a really interesting movie about Hitler's last days alive. Even though the movie had subtitles, it was really intense and emotionally draining. It let the viewer in on a side of Hitler's life that I personally had never known before. He was so many different things to so many different people; he was an uncle, a friend, a lover and a leader. To many people he was the "only way". It's odd, but whenever I'd think of Hitler, I'd never picture him as and everyday man...well, because in many ways he isn't, but as I mentioned above, he was so many things to different people, but most of all, he was a dictator who, "etched hate into the minds of millions" as the article puts it. Everything about that man was insaine. Many people thought he was just crazy, but in reality he was probably one of the most intelegent men of our history. He knew what attracted people and how to reel them in. Just like a good design, he knew what to say and how to say it so it would attract the people. This is all I can think of when I read this article. It really is a great movie to check out. I saw it at a theater in Clifton, but it's probably available to rent by now.

Alicia

Designing Hate Response

2005-09-10T18:38:00.000-07:00

In response to our reading of Designing Hate: Is there Graphic Language of Vile Emotion?

I don't think that the idea of the Nazi's of World War II being ultimately stylish is by any means a novel thought. I don't think anyone in the class would say that they liked Nazi's, but I'll be the first to admit, they looked really really cool. Frightening, but cool. They adopted an ancient symbol and used it to symbolize fear and hate, and they did it well. I think this is stuff we've all heard though, and I found the article to be a little ordinary.

I definitely believe that good design can help any cause, nice or mean. The Nazi's were stylish, with their reds and blacks and what have you, and the leather was a nice touch too. Their design was solid and even if you're selling hatred and violence, if it looks neat, it's gonna work better. As I said before, it's attractive stuff and even though it means terrible things, when you see that Swastika, those lightening bolts and the black/red fields of color, it looks really nice. I think whenever anyone sees Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, they say "that's cool lookin" when Indy crashes the Nazi rally to get his Dad's diary back. Illustrator Andrew Bawidamann's draws/paints pin-up chicks, mostly in WWII fashion. Whenever he gets requests, it's ALWAYS for the Nazi chicks (he told us so in Illustration class). People adore the Nazi gals. The black leather and reds are fashionable, whether it's mean nasty fashion or not.

The article brings up the idea of adopting symbols and forcing them to mean different things. As Steven Heller says, the swastika isn't naturally a symbol of hatred and persecution. It's the way the Nazi's used it that made it terrifying. Hell, if a radical, powerful group of Mexicans decided to hunt down and kill young, skinny, white male design students and they used the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Futura on all of their hate literature and flags, I'd be super scared of it. I don't think it matters a whole lot what image or font you use, if you use it alongside violence and hate, it's going to be scary. Same with the KKK. I think when talking about a white hood with two little eye-holes cut out, I would think of a really stupid ghost costume. However, the KKK fancied it up a little bit, and now white hoods scare people. Watch out, perhaps slap-bracelets will be the next fear-inducing fashion!

Taking things people are used to, and switching them up a little bit is an easy way to slowly introduce people to new ideas. If you have a radical new idea, and you introduce it to the public in a radical way, it's going to be hard for people to associate with it. If instead, you use old symbols, plain styles and tried-and-true fonts to express your crazy ideas, it's going to be easier to get people to look at it and read it. Getting people comfortable is the first step in selling them something.

Oliver.....I hope no one reads this and thinks I'm a Nazi-lover...

Word Up.

2005-09-09T20:25:00.000-07:00

Oh, Type Designer, May I Have a Word? A Comment On:
“An Existential Guide to Type,” by Karrie Jacobs

If the art professors at NKU should ask me why I want to be an artist or a designer at my portfolio review, the first thing I intend to say is, “Because I see infinite possibilities.” Some of which work, some of which don’t—but you never know which will work and which will not until you’ve tried everything, right?

If living in the post modernist era (or post-post modernist, as I’ve heard some social gurus of the art world trill after 9/11) is all about treading ground in one’s work already explored by another’s— or the reinterpretation of ideas without ever coming up with anything new— then I might be out of step with the times. For to see infinite possibilities sometimes means not treading worn ground. I’m not saying by any means that my work is destined to, or might one day, end what it means to be “postmodern,” but that’s not to say no one else will.

(God, how I passionately hate the postmodernist legacy. To me it’s an evolutionary dead end for art and design. When there are no more fresh ideas, I strongly believe this will be the death of civilization . . . I’ll save this rant for another day.)

Now let me contradict myself and admit that I’m a bit of a historicist and yet enjoy the “anything goes” mentality of some postmodern design. I prefer Garamond and the ideas of William Morris over anything coming out of the Swiss school; on the other hand, I’m not a fan of rules about kerning, leading, and alphabet “geometry,” and will not hesitate to break rules and smash letters together if it makes the piece “feel right.”

I mention all this because it sort of amuses me when type designers get together—in the case of the Jacob’s essay, at Type 1987—to discuss what they like, don’t like, rules and traditions about type that are being upheld or ignored, metal punches versus Macs, being trendy, being classic or reliable—all this from designers who, in some form or another, broke the preceding generations’ rules about typography and offered a new idea or interpretation through their work.

Much of this essay revolved around the questions, “What is a typeface?” and “If type foundries slightly bastardize Garamond to distinguish it from other foundries’ Garamond, is it really Garamond?” Karrie Jacob writes:

What emerged at Type 1987 was a confrontation between the
purists and the technoids: designers, small-press operators, and
miscellaneous type fundamentalists insisted that letterforms have
degenerated since the extinction of hot type . . . The computer
enthusiasts, on the other hand, exuded optimism and boasted of a
world full to overflowing with more and better faces. (24)

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. In spite of our fabulous technology, has anyone ever really seen—or, better yet, used—the true Garamond? Do you happen to have a “favorite” Garamond? On a different note, while technology has allowed typefaces to overflow, are the faces really better? What would Garamond himself say if he saw, for instance, an ITC version of his work, where strokes were a little different and serifs adjusted to modern sensibilities? I think there’s a difference between evolving from a typeface and bastardizing it.

Consider what Jacobs writes in the following: “A typeface from a hundred years ago is a time traveler, so we don’t always question its credentials, we don’t ask whether it’s the best of its day. We like it because it’s here. And we don’t want the survivors of the past to be corrupted by the present.” (30)

But I think the real issue is personal preference. Ed Benguiat, who abhors the idea of drawing on the computer, still designs letterforms by hand “because a computer doesn’t have a heart.” (p.26) And I’ve known graphic design majors who abhor drawing with their hands but still put our amazing work in twenty minutes on a computer. It’s all still “anything goes.”

In a similar instance, I disliked using power tools in sculpture class because I couldn’t feel any personal connection to my work against the whirr of machinery and the back-of-my-mind feeling that, inevitably, I would suffer some sort of horrible accident and cut off a limb while carving a lump of wood. This lack of confidence was what also reduced my appreciation for Photo I at the off, for I couldn’t decide who was in control: the camera, the film, the chemicals, or me? But after learning the limitations of the equipment—just like learning to navigate design programs—I found my hands more immersed in the activity than I had ever felt with, say, painting. Therefore, I have to agree with Matthew Carter’s assessment that, Mac or metal punch, it doesn’t really matter: “I think that there is no real truth to materials.” (29)

No, it’s the infinite possibilities that must drive us, or your own raison d’etre as a designer. In response to Paula Scher’s idea in the essay that foundries’ redesigning of typefaces is an attack on our heritage as designers, I propose this as a rule for typography—and only one rule: Know your heritage from its most basic roots, see where you fit in, and then pursue what you design with passion and a confidence that suggests nothing like it has ever been done before.

Second class or ??

2005-09-09T20:16:00.000-07:00

“Certain things work best when we are unaware of them . . . If the design of a typeface, a text face, demands attention, there’s a problem.”
From An Existential Guide to Type, by Karrie Jacobs

This struck me as being a little uncanny because it's exactly what technical designers (scenic, lighting, sound) are sometimes told in theatre. There's this mentality in some design circles "to be seen and not heard," or that everything in the background-- set, lights, costumes-- should compliment what the actors are doing on stage, so the actor's art is first (although all such designers take great pride in their work). Some teachers suggest that if there's a comment (either positive or negative) on the stage design, the production crew has failed because it has detracted attention from the action of the play-- or something went horribly wrong during a show.

So... if a regular joe comments on the typography in a magazine ad, has the ad failed in its mission to communicate an idea about a product, or is it simply a good/bad typeface design?

(On a side note... even though theatre productions depend on set designers, and design firms and graphic designers depend on typographers, why does it seem like a typographer's role is being reduced to a "second class citizen" status if there is a prevalent idea that type shouldn't "demand attention," as Jacobs suggests?)

43,000 Reasons To “Take It Easy” This Labor Day Weekend

2005-09-02T07:15:00.000-07:00

Happy Labor Day Weekend!

Hey, since we’re talking about “labor” how about some information:

In an address last March to the AIGA’s Schools of Thought II conference, Meredith Davis (NCSU College of Design Director) reported that in the United States there are over 1,700 two and four-year graphic design programs, CHURNING OUT OVER 43,000 GRADUATING STUDENTS EVERY YEAR! -CMYK Magazine, Summer 2005

It get’s better. Here are some interesting points from the U.S. Department of Labor:

• Nearly one-third of designers were self-employed—almost five times the proportion for all professional and related occupations.

• Creativity is crucial in all design occupations; most designers need a bachelor’s degree, and candidates with a master’s degree hold an advantage.

•Keen competition is expected for most jobs, despite average projected employment growth, because many talented individuals are attracted to careers as designers.
-U.S. Department of Labor

Have a nice weekend everybody!

-Tobias

David Carson and the next step in typography

2005-09-01T21:08:00.000-07:00

On the Hillman Curtis website, there is a documentary of the work of David Carson. Carson, who is known for placing type by interpreting the meaning behind the message, states:

“It seems like there was Nevil Brody, then I came along. And then the next thing doesn’t seem to have happened. It will, it is inevitable, but I never thought there would be this big of a gap.”

Any ideas why the next step hasn’t happened yet? Do you guys think this is because the Mac has taken a lot of the craft out of our profession? Especially when it comes to typography?

Font copyright?

2005-08-31T07:23:00.000-07:00

I read yesterday that copyright isn't allowed on typeface creation because fonts are "utilitarian" and not art or some bullshit. That seems sorta crazy. Is that old news or have there been updates on the subject?

Design Studio Links

2005-08-25T17:03:00.000-07:00

I wanted to start a thread where we could all post links to some of our favorite Design websites. To start it off, here are some of mine:

Hillman Curtis
MK12
Samata Mason
Tolleson Design
Neostream

The First Posting…

2005-08-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

For this month every student in the class will comment on one of the two following essays from Texts on Type:

An Existential Guide to Type. By: Karrie Jacobs

Designing Hate: Is There a Graphic Language of Vile Emotion? By: Steven Heller

-Tobias

NKU Advanced Typography

Copyright it...

Grids

Troubled type

A little late

trouble

GRIDS

Troubled Type

Grids and such

mcGriddle

gridoploganger.

troubled rudy

van-der-lans

type

More than two people read it but at least one of them was dead this weekend

CULT

I crave brains!!!

Zombies

ALL KAPS...

Zombie

Zombie Mondernism

zombies....blahghg BRAINS!

Zombie Modernism

5 Snaps

Zombies...

Rumors....sorry this is so late

Apologize for being late. Rumors...

Due dates are hard, chaos is easy (according to Newton)

Rumors of Death

A little late... but WHO DEY!!! Oh yeah... Rumors...

I know I'm late but here is my take

The New Typography...is confusing.

Rumors of the Deathof Typeography...

Rumors

Well it has not happened yet

"Rumors of the Death of Typography..."

Rumors...

The New Typography (As Of 1919)

"Rumors of the Death of Typo"

Moholy-Cow, Batman... New Typography

existential guide to hate...i mean type

Kate's incredibly late/angry post

Here is Chris Ritter’s Post…

Here is Jeremy Hess’ Post…

E.Romer Article #2 Reaction

Derek's take on the matter

Tim's Response to “An Existential Guide to Type”

Designing Hate Response

Hate Design Response

Criticism: Type as Discourse Response

Designing Hate

Thoughts on Designing Hate

Adam's Response to An Existential Guide to Type

Designing Hate

Designing Hate Response

Word Up.

Second class or ??

43,000 Reasons To “Take It Easy” This Labor Day Weekend

David Carson and the next step in typography

Font copyright?

Design Studio Links

The First Posting…